AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant-Appellant, Mikko T. Sekiya, sought to appeal the revocation of his probation. He admitted the allegations contained in the petition to revoke his probation but later filed a memorandum in opposition to the court's proposal to dismiss his appeal due to a failure to file a timely notice of appeal and his waiver of the right to appeal by admitting the allegations.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's appeal should be dismissed because the Defendant failed to file a timely notice of appeal and waived the right to appeal by admitting the allegations in the petition to revoke his probation.
• Appellant: Contended that he was entitled to appeal, noting he received an extension of time to file his docketing statement and was not informed about the filing requirements or his entitlement to appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's appeal of the revocation of his probation should be dismissed due to failure to file a timely notice of appeal and waiver of the right to appeal by admitting the allegations in the petition to revoke his probation.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The court concluded that the Defendant's appeal was not properly before them due to his failure to file a timely notice of appeal and his waiver of the right to appeal by admitting the allegations in the petition to revoke his probation. The court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition, noting that an extension of time to file a docketing statement does not impact the waiver of the right to appeal. Additionally, the court found that the Defendant's lack of information about filing requirements or entitlement to appeal did not alter the assessment that the appeal was not properly before them.